Sierra Club v. County of Fresno

by Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
Contact

Why it matters: The court refined its previous test for air quality impacts analysis under CEQA, and required recirculation of an EIR due to its failure to specifically analyze the impacts on human health resulting from the change in air quality due to the project’s air emissions. Compliance with the court’s new correlation requirement could be onerous and expensive; and because it sets a new standard, it could provide new avenues for litigation.

Facts: The County of Fresno certified an EIR prepared for a proposed master-planned “active adult” community for persons aged 55 or older in north central Fresno County, known as the Friant Ranch project. The EIR’s air quality section accurately identified the existing poor air quality environmental setting in Fresno County, calculated the annual tons of PM10, reactive organic gases (ROG), and nitrogen oxides (NOx) that the project would emit at build-out, and generally described the adverse health effects associated with each of these pollutants. The air quality analysis concluded that, even with the EIR’s proposed air quality mitigation, the project’s emissions would exceed the County’s air quality thresholds, and would therefore create an unavoidable significant air quality impact. The County approved the project and certified the EIR with a statement of overriding consideration. The Superior Court denied petitioner’s CEQA and general plan inconsistency claims, and petitioner appealed.

The Decision: The Court of Appeal for the Fifth Appellate District looked to its prior decision in Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, which found that two Walmart EIRs failed to adequately disclose the health consequences of air pollution generated by the projects. The court found that, in contrast to the Walmart EIRs, the Friant Ranch EIR adequately identified the air quality impacts of the project, by providing the type and quantity of the generated pollutants, and summarizing the potential health impacts of each pollutant. However, the Friant Ranch EIR failed to adequately analyze the identified air quality impacts, as required by the Bakersfield Citizens holding. Specifically, the court found that the EIR failed to provide any specific correlation between the project’s emissions and the likely resulting impacts on human health. To illustrate the type of correlation required, the court provided an “extreme” example of a reader of the EIR not knowing whether the project’s emissions would require people with respiratory difficulties to wear a filtering device when going outdoors, or if the emissions would not amount to any more than a “drop in the bucket” to those breathing the air containing the additional pollutants. Due to its failure to provide any such correlation, the EIR’s air quality analysis was deemed inadequate. However, the court did confirm that the County had discretion in choosing what specific type of analysis to utilize in analyzing health impacts.

In addition to the EIR’s inadequate analysis of air quality impacts, the court also found flaws with its proposed air quality mitigation. Specifically, the EIR provided a single air quality mitigation measure, which consisted of a dozen separate provisions addressing nonresidential development, reduction of residential energy consumption, promotion of bicycle usage, and transportation emissions. Petitioner claimed that a number of the nonresidential development mitigation provisions (such as tree planting guidelines, installation of multiple power outlets at truck loading docks, and the recommended installation of HVAC units with catalyst systems, to be required “where feasible and appropriate”) violated CEQA because they were mere “amorphous guidelines” that were unenforceable. The court agreed, finding that neither the mitigation measure itself nor any other part of the EIR clarified how the measure was to be made enforceable, causing uncertainty as to “who is to do what and when that action must be taken.” In addition, although the EIR elsewhere restates this same mitigation measure without the “where feasible and appropriate” limitation, the court found that this internal inconsistency added to the measure’s vagueness problem, because this internal inconsistency could potentially be relied upon by the County to justify not requiring any of the measure’s provision.

In another blow to the EIR’s air quality analysis, the court found that there was no substantial evidence supporting the EIR’s conclusion that the single proposed air quality mitigation measure would “substantially reduce air quality impacts related to human activity” within the project area. The court stated that CEQA’s disclosure principles prohibit such a “bare conclusion,” and instead require such a statement to be supported by facts or analysis. Since the EIR lacked any quantitative analysis showing this statement to be true (or, alternatively, failed to disclose any nonquantitative basis for this claim), the court found it to be an impermissible unsupported conclusion, which on remand should either be explained or deleted.

Finally, the court held that the EIR improperly deferred the formulation of the project’s air quality mitigation measures, because the EIR stated that the County and the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District could “substitute different air pollution control measures for individual projects, that are equally effective or superior to those proposed.” However, for the majority of the air quality mitigation provisions, the EIR did not provide any objective performance standards for determining whether a future substitute measure would be as effective as (or superior to) any of the originally proposed measures. Therefore, the EIR’s provision for the future substitution of mitigation measures, coupled with its lack of specific performance standards, was held to violate CEQA.

The County and the developer could take small comfort in the fact that the court rejected petitioner’s other CEQA-based challenge regarding the project’s wastewater impacts, finding that the EIR adequately disclosed information relating to the amount of wastewater to be generated by the project, and how that wastewater would be disposed of. The court also rejected petitioner’s claim that the project violated California’s planning and zoning law due to alleged inconsistencies with the County’s general plan policies, finding that the County had properly exercised its discretion in approving the project’s general plan amendment to change the project site’s former agricultural land use designation.

A petition for review has been submitted to the California Supreme Court, which, if granted, would take this decision “off the books” pending the Supreme Court’s decision. In the meantime, however, developers and local agencies should seek to follow the requirements set forth in this decision for performing adequate air quality impact analysis and requiring associated mitigation measures.

Practice Pointers: Some suggested responses to this decision are the following:

  • Provide specific analysis and correlation of a project’s air quality impacts and anticipated human health impacts. The court suggests one potential standard for this analysis in its decision: an EIR could provide an estimation of the number of days of nonattainment that would occur, if any, as a result of a project’s air quality impacts.
  • Ensure that proposed mitigation measures are specific and enforceable – be clear who is to impose and enforce them, and do not limit applicability of the mitigation using a vague standard (i.e., “where feasible and appropriate”).
  • If the EIR contemplates (or authorizes) the future substitution of mitigation measures, ensure that the currently proposed measures contain clear and objective performance standards that substitute mitigation can be measured against in order to determine their effectiveness.
  • Provide adequate quantitative assessment supporting any claim that a mitigation measure will substantially reduce an identified impact.
- See more at: http://www.manatt.com/Real_Estate_06_26_14.aspx?search=1#sthash.Z1DtUu5a.dpuf

Why it matters: The court refined its previous test for air quality impacts analysis under CEQA, and required recirculation of an EIR due to its failure to specifically analyze the impacts on human health resulting from the change in air quality due to the project’s air emissions. Compliance with the court’s new correlation requirement could be onerous and expensive; and because it sets a new standard, it could provide new avenues for litigation.

Facts: The County of Fresno certified an EIR prepared for a proposed master-planned “active adult” community for persons aged 55 or older in north central Fresno County, known as the Friant Ranch project. The EIR’s air quality section accurately identified the existing poor air quality environmental setting in Fresno County, calculated the annual tons of PM10, reactive organic gases (ROG), and nitrogen oxides (NOx) that the project would emit at build-out, and generally described the adverse health effects associated with each of these pollutants. The air quality analysis concluded that, even with the EIR’s proposed air quality mitigation, the project’s emissions would exceed the County’s air quality thresholds, and would therefore create an unavoidable significant air quality impact. The County approved the project and certified the EIR with a statement of overriding consideration. The Superior Court denied petitioner’s CEQA and general plan inconsistency claims, and petitioner appealed.

The Decision: The Court of Appeal for the Fifth Appellate District looked to its prior decision in Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, which found that two Walmart EIRs failed to adequately disclose the health consequences of air pollution generated by the projects. The court found that, in contrast to the Walmart EIRs, the Friant Ranch EIR adequately identified the air quality impacts of the project, by providing the type and quantity of the generated pollutants, and summarizing the potential health impacts of each pollutant. However, the Friant Ranch EIR failed to adequately analyze the identified air quality impacts, as required by the Bakersfield Citizens holding. Specifically, the court found that the EIR failed to provide any specific correlation between the project’s emissions and the likely resulting impacts on human health. To illustrate the type of correlation required, the court provided an “extreme” example of a reader of the EIR not knowing whether the project’s emissions would require people with respiratory difficulties to wear a filtering device when going outdoors, or if the emissions would not amount to any more than a “drop in the bucket” to those breathing the air containing the additional pollutants. Due to its failure to provide any such correlation, the EIR’s air quality analysis was deemed inadequate. However, the court did confirm that the County had discretion in choosing what specific type of analysis to utilize in analyzing health impacts.

In addition to the EIR’s inadequate analysis of air quality impacts, the court also found flaws with its proposed air quality mitigation. Specifically, the EIR provided a single air quality mitigation measure, which consisted of a dozen separate provisions addressing nonresidential development, reduction of residential energy consumption, promotion of bicycle usage, and transportation emissions. Petitioner claimed that a number of the nonresidential development mitigation provisions (such as tree planting guidelines, installation of multiple power outlets at truck loading docks, and the recommended installation of HVAC units with catalyst systems, to be required “where feasible and appropriate”) violated CEQA because they were mere “amorphous guidelines” that were unenforceable. The court agreed, finding that neither the mitigation measure itself nor any other part of the EIR clarified how the measure was to be made enforceable, causing uncertainty as to “who is to do what and when that action must be taken.” In addition, although the EIR elsewhere restates this same mitigation measure without the “where feasible and appropriate” limitation, the court found that this internal inconsistency added to the measure’s vagueness problem, because this internal inconsistency could potentially be relied upon by the County to justify not requiring any of the measure’s provision.

In another blow to the EIR’s air quality analysis, the court found that there was no substantial evidence supporting the EIR’s conclusion that the single proposed air quality mitigation measure would “substantially reduce air quality impacts related to human activity” within the project area. The court stated that CEQA’s disclosure principles prohibit such a “bare conclusion,” and instead require such a statement to be supported by facts or analysis. Since the EIR lacked any quantitative analysis showing this statement to be true (or, alternatively, failed to disclose any nonquantitative basis for this claim), the court found it to be an impermissible unsupported conclusion, which on remand should either be explained or deleted.

Finally, the court held that the EIR improperly deferred the formulation of the project’s air quality mitigation measures, because the EIR stated that the County and the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District could “substitute different air pollution control measures for individual projects, that are equally effective or superior to those proposed.” However, for the majority of the air quality mitigation provisions, the EIR did not provide any objective performance standards for determining whether a future substitute measure would be as effective as (or superior to) any of the originally proposed measures. Therefore, the EIR’s provision for the future substitution of mitigation measures, coupled with its lack of specific performance standards, was held to violate CEQA.

The County and the developer could take small comfort in the fact that the court rejected petitioner’s other CEQA-based challenge regarding the project’s wastewater impacts, finding that the EIR adequately disclosed information relating to the amount of wastewater to be generated by the project, and how that wastewater would be disposed of. The court also rejected petitioner’s claim that the project violated California’s planning and zoning law due to alleged inconsistencies with the County’s general plan policies, finding that the County had properly exercised its discretion in approving the project’s general plan amendment to change the project site’s former agricultural land use designation.

A petition for review has been submitted to the California Supreme Court, which, if granted, would take this decision “off the books” pending the Supreme Court’s decision. In the meantime, however, developers and local agencies should seek to follow the requirements set forth in this decision for performing adequate air quality impact analysis and requiring associated mitigation measures.

Practice Pointers: Some suggested responses to this decision are the following:

  • Provide specific analysis and correlation of a project’s air quality impacts and anticipated human health impacts. The court suggests one potential standard for this analysis in its decision: an EIR could provide an estimation of the number of days of nonattainment that would occur, if any, as a result of a project’s air quality impacts.
  • Ensure that proposed mitigation measures are specific and enforceable – be clear who is to impose and enforce them, and do not limit applicability of the mitigation using a vague standard (i.e., “where feasible and appropriate”).
  • If the EIR contemplates (or authorizes) the future substitution of mitigation measures, ensure that the currently proposed measures contain clear and objective performance standards that substitute mitigation can be measured against in order to determine their effectiveness.
  • Provide adequate quantitative assessment supporting any claim that a mitigation measure will substantially reduce an identified impact.

 

 

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
Contact
more
less

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.